patrick.net

joeyjojojunior says

The same quoted text describes it as a terrorist attack. You're as bad as the SJWs--going around looking for a reason to be offended.

Dishonesty is offensive
The truth will set you free

Joey you need to go home Son and tell the Liberal that paid you to come here and troll us to change our minds about Trump failed.

Ask Soros for some more money. You're working cheap Kid.

"Dishonesty is offensive The truth will set you free"

Just curious--what do you think was dishonest?

I wonder if it is their culture of marrying 4 wives that causes this chaos. The old farts get the 4 wives and the young men who can never score a woman fight and kill each other in the hopes of 70 virgins for all of eternity??

Dan8267 says

Not only is he highly intelligent,

Then I take it the spelling mistake in the quote is yours :)

joeyjojojunior says

The same quoted text describes it as a terrorist attack. You're as bad as the SJWs--going around looking for a reason to be offended.

The quote says that the governments of Turkey and Russia described it as a terror attack.

"The quote says that the governments of Turkey and Russia described it as a terror attack."

Yes, and your point is? I would think if the NYT was trying to hide that it was a terror attack, they wouldn't say it was described as a terror attack in the next sentence.

"in what the leaders of Turkey and Russia described as a provocative terror attack."

I'm referring to the OP Quote, not any future sentences the article might possess.

It would be nice is periodically the NYT and others would mention that the "Opposition Groups" of any account in Syria are either AQ or ISIS or their affiliates. I think the Exile Banker-led and Western-financed Mercenary bands for neoliberal globalization "Democracy", never very numerous and never very tenacious, are all but non-existent at this point.

"I'm referring to the OP Quote, not any future sentences the article might possess."

Me too. The sentence where the NYT says Turkey and Russia called it a terror attack.

joeyjojojunior says

Me too. The sentence where the NYT says Turkey and Russia called it a terror attack.

Yes, NYT said Russia and Turkey called it a terror attack. Not the NYT in the quote.

"Yes, NYT said Russia and Turkey called it a terror attack. Not the NYT in the quote."

You're kidding, right? This is just ridiculous now.

FP says

Then I take it the spelling mistake in the quote is yours :)

What spelling mistake? I did, however, transcribe the quote from a video.

joeyjojojunior says

"Dishonesty is offensive The truth will set you free"

Just curious--what do you think was dishonest?

The part where they reported that the gunman shouted "God is Great" instead of reporting what he actually said, Allah Akbar.

There's something important that is lost in translation there, intentionally.

Your curiosity would be better spent by asking why they would do this.

Dan8267 says

What spelling mistake?

"more attractive then"

"The part where they reported that the gunman shouted "God is Great" instead of reporting what he actually said, Allah Akbar. There's something important that is lost in translation there, intentionally. Your curiosity would be better spent by asking why they would do this."

Not really curious about that-it's painfully obvious. They don't think some of their readers would know what Allahu Akbar means.

If their readers somehow don't know what Allahu Akbar means, translating it for them as "God is Great" isn't doing them any favors, rather it is perpetuating ignorance.

I got to say, once again, I don't get it.

Allah Akbar versus "God is great," we're talking an Islamic radical jihadist either way.

Patrick says

Gosh, why don't they quote what he was actually screaming while committing murder, which was "Allahu Akbar!"?

Watching Patrick and others get so foolishly OCD about this makes me sad, and it also makes me worry. Is my brain also becoming so one dimensional and ossified as I get older too ?

Why is Patrick not complaining about them translating the other parts of what he was screaming, "don't forget Aleppo, don't forget Syria." As an editor, I can see the point of being consistent and translating eveything. I guess they could have shown both - the Arabic version and the translated of everything in parentheses . Besides, for any half way educated person (90% of people reading the NYT) the meaning of an Islamic terrorist shouting "Allah Akbar" versus translated version "God is great" is beyond irrelevant.

You're still grasping at straws Patrick. But hey, keep on trying.

"If their readers somehow don't know what Allahu Akbar means, translating it for them as "God is Great" isn't doing them any favors, rather it is perpetuating ignorance."

Perhaps, but I imagine if you asked 10 random people at the DMV what Allahu Akbar means, you'd be lucky if you found 5 that knew.

I'm tipping you guys are not bilingual

While one can find words to translate foreign languages into English, it doesn't always translate literally

If your "News" Outlet reports a Terrorist Attack as a "Truck Crash", you're watching fake news!

Patrick says

Gosh, why don't they quote what he was actually screaming while committing murder, which was "Allahu Akbar!"?

It's not like the NY Times was simply translating. They were whitewashing. They guy was a Turk. So if he was screaming "allahu akbar" in Arabic, he had an explicit point to his use of Arabic, no?

His point was that he was committing murder in the name of Islam.

But the NY Times wants to downplay that fact.

#legacymedia #spin #lossofcredibility

Please substitute the country under attack and substitute absolved with "that they will use whatever force necessary to cease hostilities from Extremists"

July 4, 1776:
WE, therefore, the Representatives of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the Rectitude of our Intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly Publish and Declare, that these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown

For example:

Dec 19, 2016:
WE, therefore, the Representatives of the EU, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the Rectitude of our Intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of this Union, solemnly Publish and Declare, that these States are, and of Right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they will use whatever force necessary to cease hostilities from Extremists.

"I'm tipping you guys are not bilingual. While one can find words to translate foreign languages into English, it doesn't always translate literally"

I am, but it doesn't matter. The NYT decided it would serve its readers better by translating. You can certainly debate whether you would have done so, but I find all this conspiracy theory nonsense to be less than compelling.

The NYT decided it would serve its readers better by translating

Why not just accurately report the news? Seems like the simplest option. I don't need my news outlets intentionally looking to deceive me, and i fail to see how it could ever better serve their audience.

"Why not just accurately report the news? Seems like the simplest option. I don't need my news outlets intentionally looking to deceive me, and i fail to see how it could ever better serve their audience."

The NYT may not be your best place for news then. Clearly you disagree with their editorial choice in this case, but I think deriving some nefarious intent on their part is a stretch. Similar to when Patrick though Yahoo was intending to deceive him with their stock graph. Occam's razor usually applies.

joeyjojojunior says

Similar to when Patrick though Yahoo was intending to deceive him with their stock graph. Occam's razor usually applies.

Yep. Too much marijuana perhaps ?

lostand confused says

I wonder if it is their culture of marrying 4 wives that causes this chaos. The old farts get the 4 wives and the young men who can never score a woman fight and kill each other in the hopes of 70 virgins for all of eternity??

These violent people were always in conflict. This resulted in the men dying off, leading to the need for each man to have 4 wives. They will tell you it's to prevent prostitution.

Strategist says

lostand confused says

I wonder if it is their culture of marrying 4 wives that causes this chaos. The old farts get the 4 wives and the young men who can never score a woman fight and kill each other in the hopes of 70 virgins for all of eternity??

These violent people were always in conflict. This resulted in the men dying off, leading to the need for each man to have 4 wives. They will tell you it's to prevent prostitution.

An alternate explanation is that monopolization of women by old men provided the necessary pressure to get young men to go kill foreigners in order to take their wives. This nicely expands the Islamic empire so the old men get more power and tax money. So polygamy is a feature of their system, not a bug. Works until you run out of enemies, or until your enemies are stronger.

rando says

An alternate explanation is that monopolization of women by old men provided the necessary pressure to get young men to go kill foreigners in order to take their wives. This nicely expands the Islamic empire so the old men get more power and tax money. So polygamy is a feature of their system, not a bug. Works until you run out of enemies, or until your enemies are stronger.

Polygamy, some men getting many mates and others getting none, requires either rape conquests as Patrick describes or male ejection, which is what the Mormons practice. Male sons are ejected from their society when they demand breeding rights and left to fend for themselves outside of the communities they grew up in leaving the dominate males with plenty of mates.

Unsurprisingly, both forms of polygamy are practiced all over the animal kingdom. Male gorillas are ejected from their group when they reach sexual maturity. Humans aren't as different from the other animals as we like to pretend.

FP says

Dan8267 says

What spelling mistake?

"more attractive then"

Fair enough. Doesn't affect the significance of the actual quote though. Ironically, it gives me the opportunity to reaffirm the quote.

Quote now corrected.

joeyjojojunior says

The same quoted text describes it as a terrorist attack.

it removes any linkage to islam by changing the language
the direction of the narrative is to never say "islamic terrorism"
NYT gets a gold star

landtof says

joeyjojojunior says

The same quoted text describes it as a terrorist attack.

it removes any linkage to islam by changing the language

the direction of the narrative is to never say "islamic terrorism"

NYT gets a gold star

Thank God for Trump who calls it as it is.
Not calling Islamic terrorism, Islamic terrorism, is fucking stupid.

marcus says

I got to say, once again, I don't get it.

Allah Akbar versus "God is great," we're talking an Islamic radical jihadist either way.

Patrick says

Gosh, why don't they quote what he was actually screaming while committing murder, which was "Allahu Akbar!"?

Watching Patrick and others get so foolishly OCD about this makes me sad, and it also makes me worry. Is my brain also becoming so one dimensional and ossified as I get older too ?

Why is Patrick not complaining about them translating the other parts of what he was screaming, "don't forget Aleppo, don't forget Syria." As an editor, I can see the point of being consistent and translating eveything. I guess they could have shown both - the Arabic version and the translated of everything in parentheses . Besides, for any half way educated person (90% of people reading the NYT) the meaning of an Islamic terrorist shouting "Allah Akbar" versus translated version "God is great" is beyond irrelevant.

You're still grasping at straws Patrick. But hey, keep on trying.

Its very relevant. Identifying the terrorists...stating what they said as an identifier of who they are "allah Akbar" frames the situation in its proper light. That is most terrorists in 2016 western society are in fact fanatical muslim islamic assholes.

Somehow I believe you might think this is not parody:

www.youtube.com/embed/Rd8cRvZZv44

landtof says

changing the language

the direction of the narrative is to never say "islamic terrorism"

What other kind is there in that region ? (not to mention the rest of the world - especially if it's religious). What other kind of religious terrorism is there ? I've never heard any other type of religious terrorism. If they said glory be to god as they killed people, that's Islamic terrorism. Even the idiots that don't know where France is, know this.

Maybe the issue is that you guys assume others are as stupid as you ?

#triggered

I just can't fathom the stupidity. It doesn't mean I'm triggered.

If only everyone was as smart as marcus

Fucking White Male says

That is most terrorists in 2016 western society are in fact fanatical muslim islamic assholes.

My point exactly. And this wasn't even in the west, it was in Turkey, a Muslim country. And they said "glory be to god" as they killed people."

After 9/11 (and more than a decade of AlQueda BS before that) , do any of you seriously think there is one single American that would read this story and not fully understand that we're talking about an Islamic terrorist or Jihadist ? Is there even one American that thinks there is a one in one thousand chance that this was not Islamic terrorism ?

MY guess is you think "yes, marcus, we know that everybody knows. But don't you see ?! THEY NEED TO SAY IT !!" "Because don't you understand - yes everyone knows, but if they don't say it - it means they are implying that what everyone knows with total and extreme certainty to be true is not true."

You sure you're not #triggered?

You sure are getting pretty worked up over it

marcus says

What other kind of religious terrorism is there ? I've never heard any other type of religious terrorism.

does anyone else want to deal with this mind fart right here?